GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) AS all these matters arise out of the same crime and the relief sought for in all these criminal petitions is for grant of regular bail in Crime No. 3 of 2002 of police Station C. I. D. , Hyderabad, all these petitions are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) PETITIONER in Crl. Petition No. 1890 of 2002 (A7) is one of the Directors of the charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. , hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "bank" ). The petitioners in Crl. Petition No. 2315 of 2002 (A-3 and A-4) are also the directors of the said Bank, whereas the petitioner in Crl. Petition No. 2454 of 2002 is the Managing Director. They are alleged to have committed offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 5 of A. P. Protection of Depositors Financial establishments Act, 1999. ( 3 ) THE case pertains to the swindling and misappropriation of the funds of the said Bank. Those irregularities came to light when the Reserve Bank of India conducted inspection of the Bank and submitted a report to the Registrar of Co-operative societies. In its report, the Reserve bank pointed out serious irregularities in the functioning of the Bank. Basing on the said inspection report, Sri Shripad Bhale rao, I. A. S. , Principal Secretary to the government, Agricultural and Co-operation, government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, holding full additional charge of the post of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, lodged a complaint to the police, which was registered as Crime No. 3 of 2002. The cid police took up investigation of the case and after completion of the same, they filed charge-sheet against A1 to A88, including the petitioners herein. ( 4 ) IT is alleged in the charge-sheet that the Chairman, Board of Directors, managing Director, Directors and other staff members of the Bank with a criminal intention and in connivance with each other sanctioned and disbursed several crores of rupees of the Bank as loans to various persons violating the Bank rules after accepting the title deeds which are defective in nature and immovable properties which are grossly overvalued, as securities and thereby committed fraud and misappropriated the bank funds. ( 5 ) LEARNED senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the petitioners in Crl. ( 5 ) LEARNED senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the petitioners in Crl. Petition No. 2315 of 2002, strenuously contended that though the petitioners are Directors, they simply attended the meetings and signed the Minutes and no specific role is attributed against them in the entire charge-sheet. Further, it is submitted by the learned senior Counsel that simply because they are the Directors of the Bank, they cannot be prosecuted for the offences with which they are charged. It is his further submission that the charge-sheet is as vague as anything. Finally, he submitted that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 2-4-2002 and also in view of the facts that the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed by police, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in Crl. Petition No. 1890 of 2002 Sri P. Venugopal reiterated the arguments advanced by the learned senior Counsel and sought for bail so far as the petitioner in the said petition is concerned. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the said submissions stating that this is not an ordinary case where bail can be granted in a routine manner when once the charge-sheet is filed and that the petitioners are accused in a scam involving about Rs. 400 crores, wherein innocent depositors of the Bank were attracted with higher rate of interest on account of which they have deposited their hard-earned money with the Bank and ultimately they had to loose their deposit amounts. It is her further submission that as per the Bye-laws of the Bank, it is one of the functions of the Board of directors to consider applications for loans and advances etc. , and in the instant case, the petitioners, who are admittedly the directors, without any rule or rhythm, have sanctioned loans to the persons of their choice without taking any valid security on account of which the Bank went into liquidation. According to her, specific accusations are made against the petitioners and therefore, she prayed for the dismissal of the petitions. ( 8 ) IN the light of the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public prosecutor, this Court has perused the entire record including the charge-sheet. According to her, specific accusations are made against the petitioners and therefore, she prayed for the dismissal of the petitions. ( 8 ) IN the light of the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public prosecutor, this Court has perused the entire record including the charge-sheet. ( 9 ) THE Bank was established in the year 1985 with Registration No. TA 1277. Accordingly to Bye-Law No. 5 of the Bank s bye-laws, the main object of the Bank is to encourage thrift, self-help and co-operation among members, to accept deposits of money from the public repayable on demand, to borrow or raise money, to lend or to advance money upon or without security to members and others as per the permission of the Registrar etc. In the elections held on 5-11-1995, 11 Board of directors were elected of whom Syed alamdar Hussain (Sajjad Aga) was the chairman and acted as such till he is alleged to have committed suicide. In all, the Bank had 21 branches, of which 19 branches are established at Hyderabad. The Bank has also got the "scheduled" status. In all, the Bank has about 1,39,518 depositors with a total deposit of Rs. 296. 72 crores. ( 10 ) IN the report furnished by the Reserve Bank of India, it is stated that the report for last inspection concluded by reserve Bank of India with reference to the bank s financial position as on 31-3-2000 was forwarded to it on 11-11-2000. Although the Bank had furnished its compliance within the prescribed period of six weeks on 18-12-2000, the same was not considered as satisfactory as a large number of defects were found to be persisting despite bank furnishing positive compliance. Thus advances continued to be concentrated against immovable property, credit appraisal system continued to be highly unsatisfactory, defects continued to persist in opening and servicing of deposit accounts and DTL continued to be computed incorrectly. The bank had also not framed any policy for investment of its funds and for granting loans and advances. Further, according to the report furnished by the reserve Bank of India, the profitability of the Bank marginally declined in the year ending with 31-3-2001 as compared to the previous year. The bank had also not framed any policy for investment of its funds and for granting loans and advances. Further, according to the report furnished by the reserve Bank of India, the profitability of the Bank marginally declined in the year ending with 31-3-2001 as compared to the previous year. According to the charge- sheet filed by the police also though a particular procedure is prescribed for advancement of loans, the Board of directors have given a go bye to the procedure and sanctioned loans to the persons of their choice. In all, the Bank advanced about 25 loans to the persons of their choice. The above said 25 loans are more than Rs. 50 lakhs each, apart from various other loans which are less than rs. 50 lakhs each. ( 11 ) IN the light of the above factual position, I am prima facie of the view that the charges levelled against the petitioners herein cannot be said to be vague and in a routine manner the petitioners are entitled for bail merely because the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed. This Court is also conscious of the agony of as many as 1,39,589 depositors who have deposited their hard-earned money to a tune of Rs. 296. 72 crores in the Bank and are now made to run from pillar to post to get back their money. The discretion under Section 437 Cr. P. C. shall not be exercised in favour of the persons who are prima facie found to be guilty of serious offences affecting the society involving allegations amounting to shattering the confidence of the people in the impartiality and the majesty of law. In the light of the above, this Court has examined the role attributed to the petitioners individually to see as to whether they are entitled for bail or not. Criminal Petition Nos. 2315 and 1890 of 2002: ( 12 ) THE petitioners in Crl. Petition No. 2315 of 2002 who are arrayed as A-3 and A-4 are none other than the sons-in-law of Syed Alamdar Hussain (Sajjad Aga), the chairman of the Bank, and were elected as directors of the Bank on 5-11-1995 and continued as such. Similarly, the petitioner in Crl. Petition No. 1890 of 2002 (A7) was also elected as one of the Directors on 5-11-1995 and continued as such. Similarly, the petitioner in Crl. Petition No. 1890 of 2002 (A7) was also elected as one of the Directors on 5-11-1995 and continued as such. In every transaction of loan, their complicity is clearly attributed and hence I am not in agreement with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners Sri Padmanabha reddy that they have no role to play with the alleged offence and that they were simply attending the meetings and signed the minutes. According to Bye-law No. 35, it is the duty of the Board of Directors to consider the applications for loans and advances and discounting of bills and to determine the terms and conditions thereof. In the instant case, according to the allegations of the charge-sheet, the petitioners have given a total go-bye to the bye-laws as well as the circulars in sanctioning the loans to the persons of their choice and huge funds of the Bank deposited by the depositors were swindled and shared among themselves, it is unfortunate that now-a- days, white-collared offences are rampant and the reason for this is to make fast buck in no time. In all these white- collared offences, huge amounts of the public are involved. Therefore, in this type of cases, the Court must keep in mind the larger interests of the people and the society, the seriousness of the offence alleged and the notoriety with which it is committed. Having regard to the allegations raised in the charge-sheet against the petitioners herein. I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail. Therefore, these two criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. Crl Petition No. 2454 of 2002: ( 13 ) THE petitioner herein (A-14) who was the Managing Director of the Bank stands on a different footing. ( 14 ) WHILE the petitioner was working at Bombay, he was offered the post of managing Director of the Bank on 1-10-1999 by the then Chairman (i. e. , A-2) who is no more and accordingly he assumed office of the Bank as Managing Director on 1-4-2000. No doubt, the Managing Director was assigned the powers and duties as enumerated in the Bank s Bye-law No. 39. No doubt, the Managing Director was assigned the powers and duties as enumerated in the Bank s Bye-law No. 39. But, it is seen from the report furnished by the Reserve Bank of India, that though he was appointed as the Managing Director/ chief Executive Officer of the Bank, he was provided a chamber in a Branch of the bank at Toli Chowki, Hyderabad, instead of its Administrative Office building. Though bye-law No. 39 confers certain powers upon him as Chief Executive Officer i. e. , receipt of applications for loans, sanction of loans upto the limit as decided by the Board of directors etc. , none of the loan applications have been routed through him nor his recommendations/comments were ever obtained by the Bank. It is further stated in the report that none of the powers are delegated to him regarding sanction of loans. It is also stated in the report that there was no record to indicate that he was involved in taking decisions to invest Bank s money in accordance with the bank s policy as envisaged in the bye-laws. In this case, the root-cause for the registration of the crime and investigation by the police etc. , is the report of the Reserve Bank of India, wherein no complicity of the petitioner is alleged. Further, according to the charge- sheet, the disbursement of loans to the persons of their choice started as early as in the year 1997 whereas the petitioner herein assumed office as Managing Director only on 1-4-2000. Of course, some loans were sanctioned after his appointment as managing Director. Simply on this ground, his application for bail cannot be rejected. In view of the above, I feel that it is a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner in this petition. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, Criminal Petition No. 2454 of 2002 is allowed and the petitioner (i. e. , A-14) shall be released on bail on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge at Hyderabad in Cr. No. 3 of 2002 of C. I. D. , P. S. , Hyderabad. ( 16 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner shall not leave Hyderabad without the prior permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, c. I. D. , Hyderabad. 50,000/- with two sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan sessions Judge at Hyderabad in Cr. No. 3 of 2002 of C. I. D. , P. S. , Hyderabad. ( 16 ) HOWEVER, the petitioner shall not leave Hyderabad without the prior permission of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, c. I. D. , Hyderabad. He is further directed that he shall report before the Deputy superintendent of Police, C. I. D. , Police station every day between 8. 00 and 10. 00 a. m. , until further orders. ( 17 ) IT is, however, made clear that the learned Sessions Judge who is conducting the trial of the case may not get influenced by any of the observations made by this court in these petitions. Further, as the entire investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to expedite the trial of the case.